|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
One final calculation for fun:
Comparing UK vs US death rates on a UK-sized country:
63 mil x 1.2 / 100k = 756 (UK RATES)
63 mil x 4.8 / 100k = 3024 (US RATES)
Comparing UK vs US death rates on a US-size country:
314 mil x 1.2 / 100k = 3768 (UK RATES)
314 mil x 4.8 / 100k = 15072 (US RATES)
I don't want to go into why it's like this but saying "only 3 difference per 100k isn't a big deal" is not logical.
|
On July 22 2012 00:51 Paperplane wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 1.23 vs 4.8 1.23 * 3 = 3.69 You have to multiply, not add up. It's about 3.9 times bigger.
On July 22 2012 00:55 karpo wrote:
One final calculation for fun:
Comparing UK vs US death rates on a UK-sized country:
63 mil x 1.2 / 100k = 756 (UK RATES)
63 mil x 4.8 / 100k = 3024 (US RATES)
Comparing UK vs US death rates on a US-size country:
314 mil x 1.2 / 100k = 3768 (UK RATES)
314 mil x 4.8 / 100k = 15072 (US RATES)
I don't want to go into why it's like this but saying "only 3 difference per 100k isn't a big deal" is not logical.
^ This.
There's a reason why stats are calculated per 100,000. It's a little silly to try to look at in raw numbers without comparing population. 3 per 100,000 is a sigificant number.
|
On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live.
See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else.
|
Australia796 Posts
On July 22 2012 00:10 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:05 zatic wrote:On July 21 2012 23:46 The KY wrote:On July 21 2012 23:41 Archybaldie wrote:On July 21 2012 23:36 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:30 Rassy wrote:
So what are the reasons to keep the guns?
Self-defence, culture/tradition, and the fact that bearing arms is a "god given right" in the constitution. + Show Spoiler +"The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States reads as follows: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia' but before I address that consider this. When the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people. A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people. A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier. The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference. Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people. The defence of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it. So despite arguments to the contrary from some. The term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government. The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States. When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous. Brian Thwaites LL.B (Hons) Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_founding_fathers_include_the_Second_Amendment#ixzz21HOtuNoP" With the strength of modern military, would a milita even be viable as military technology increases? Also if the militia is "obselete" via modern day advantages. Would that make that law antiquated and obselete? Second these queries I would like to hear the answer. Honestly I don't think in the event of an oppressive government in the US, the citizenry could muster up and organize enough force to fight the military. Maybe in a few areas they could gain control. For a bit. This has been discussed extensively in this thread already, starting here : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=13596221 Read your comment, had a good laugh. The idea firstly that Americas army would start firing on it's own citizens baffles me to begin with, soldiers are people... Sure some may corrupt but you'd see dissension in the ranks if they ever were ordered against the population. I liked your recent use of Afghanistan, but even back farther into Vietnam you see the trend.
At this point in time then militaries have largely realised that you will have great difficulty getting soldiers to fire upon their own communities. However, the definition people use for community can be quite narrow or quite broad, and shifts narrower if you can create us-them situations between your soldiers and your targets.
Soldiers aren't trained to perform the duties of a police force, so if you force them to do this repeatedly in parts of the country other than the regions they originate from then us-them situations will form naturally. Soldiers will be forced in some of them to act in self-defense and even if there are no injuries on either side from those incidents, they will prime the troops to regard the local citizenry as hostile and dangerous.
Slow-push for greater security restrictions, firstly in urban areas then fanning out along the lines of poverty and political activism, all the while making sure to appear reactive.
Wait a few years and soldiers will find themselves firing upon US citizens without thinking about it because they're far from home, on hostile ground, and there are frequent enough attacks on soldiers that they can never quite relax enough to look at how much things have changed.
You won't have to give the order at any point, and by the time it's a real problem you've probably left office for a successor. They will have an incredibly difficult time unravelling the situation you have created without a complete loss of order.
|
On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else.
How is this relevant? Most people don't get murdered. We all know this.
Petition to rename this thread Slowly And Painfully Working Out The Totally Obvious?
|
On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else.
Are you misreading this intentionally?
For further reference:
In a country with the population size of the UK 750 people die every year by current UK death rates.
In a country with the population size of the UK 3000 people die every year by current US death rates.
In a country with the population size of the US 3750 people die every year by current UK death rates.
In a country with the population size of the US 15100 people die every year by current US death rates.
|
i think the idea that you need a gun to protect yourself is a clear example of an escalating level of violence and a misunderstanding on criminals. the american, in general, mindset towards criminals is that they are all psychopathic murders who want nothing more than to hurt you, if you look at the american justice system and gun control laws they seem to follow this premise.
harsh punishments for repeat offenders, of even minor crimes, and allowing homeowners to use deadly force to defend themselves from any intrusion. i know things differ state to state but this is the general way you are perceived across the pond.
the reality is that the average criminal while desperate and probably lacking in empathy isnt out to harm people for the sake of harming them, they have a desire to get what they want, either drugs or money (in most cases) and they know how to get these things. if you look at the average case of violent home invasion in a country like the UK the weapon of choice is a knife. this achieves 2 things. its easy to get hold of from any shop and it gives enough of a deadly advantage that most people wont resist. the average home robber wont run the risk of attempting to get a gun, and face the increased penaltys if caught if they dont need one.
then you look at the (at least perceived) state of things in the US. because there is a decent chance of an armed resistance in any home they steal from the average robber needs a gun to commit their crime, this escalation in the violence leads to increased chance of somebody getting hurt. the robber doesnt want to hurt you if he doesnt have to but both of you being armed increases the chance of someone getting shot, and guns are more dangerous than knives at the best of times.
the argument in the US seems to follow that since criminals have guns, people need guns. but that logic just doesnt follow. most criminals dont have access to truely black market weaponry, they either buy legally or on the grey market (aka badly run stores, stealing from gun stores etc). the numbers seem to speak for themselves. in a country like the UK, guns are so hard to get hold of that shootings are much rarer, and even when guns are involved they dont have to be used as often, as only 1 side (either gang on gang, or gang vs civilian violence) tends to have a gun, which leads to a difusion in the tension because the unarmed side backs down.
on the argument of armed resistance of your armed forces/government i think there is also a huge misuse of arguments. i think in the current western world there is absolutely no chance of a coup. the mindset (at least in the UK) is that the army is there to defend the people, not the government. we have strict controls to keep the government in line and everyone is aware of their role. i can see the case in countries like Egypt right now where there is no trust in the armed forces, but i just dont see this carrying over to westernised countries. if americans truly believe their army will one day attempt to take over i think they have something they need to change in their culture, and giving everyone a gun isnt the answer.
|
On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else.
You're technically right on that. The chances of a certain individual being murdered within the country is relatively slim. But when you're looking at the general population, it's a sigificant difference. You can paint it as "It's not that bad", but then it's no longer in the realm of facts but now of opinion.
But again. Statistics are elitist.
|
On July 22 2012 00:05 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:58 Thenerf wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 Uhnno wrote:On July 21 2012 23:40 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:36 Rassy wrote:
NeMeSiS3 Canada. July 21 2012 23:30. Posts 1134
Thats just nonsense.
The demand wont increase because you make the suply illegal?
The amount of people who stop with the activity because it is illegal is way bigger then the amount that starts with it because it now is illegal
Making something illegal will decrease that activity,by making it more difficult.
Thats the whole point of law enforcement.
If this was not the case then we should just stop funding the police.
Off course people will always find what the look for, the point is to make them look harder.
Make them look so hard that manny of them will give up looking. You obviously have no idea how the last 50-60 years has went. Every attempt at prohibiting something has increased it's demand. You can't bring a single example that say's that's not the case. Hell even the war on terror which is comparable has seen a massive increase since it's inception. War on drugs? same thing, alcohol prohibition? same thing... You are now saying prohibit weapons, the only people being hurt are the people who want to legally obtain something to defend themselves, how ignorant can you be to think "bad guys won't get it" -.- "make them look so hard that many of them will give up looking" <---- Not a single example in history has ever proven this true. There is a reason I can walk downtown where I live and find cocaine/crack/bath salts. With this logic you are oversimplifying matters. Alcolhol prohibition led to how it was, because people were corrupt as hell. Alcohol itself is a consumption good, easily produced by amateurs and citizens. Good luck building your own automatic rifles in your basement. Also, claiming that every form of prohibition increases demand is silly. If that is true, then the demand of every European country with prohibited gun possesion would have insanely high demand right? Newsflash, it is not. You should know "Gun Production" started in the United States at least as an industry. What I'm trying to say is building guns is very easy to do and yes we would start building our own in our houses. It's pretty much the reason we don't ban anything, somehow we end up building a black market for it until it becomes legal again. People just don't understand basic economics it seems... If the demand exists, supply for it will too. The question is would we rather it fund the government and legal organizations or the black market? Because that is the only thing you can really ask yourself, law abiding citizens will be the only ones not owning weapons.
No, no, no and no.
With gun control not every random criminal can get a gun. Along the "Guns don't kill people, only people kill people" that's the most stupid argument. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money.
I saw this argument of : "You're just going to take guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens while criminals will still find them illegally" coming from at least 10 persons in this thread.
Empirical evidence in Europe and other countries shows it's false.
|
On July 22 2012 01:06 The KY wrote:
How is this relevant? Most people don't get murdered. We all know this.
Petition to rename this thread Slowly And Painfully Working Out The Totally Obvious?
It's not obvious though if most people don't seem to understand that things can be made to sound significantly worse or significantly better than they are in reality.
On July 22 2012 01:07 Eps wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:[quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:[quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else. You're technically right on that. The chances of a certain individual being murdered within the country is relatively slim. But when you're looking at the general population, it's a sigificant difference. You can paint it as "It's not that bad", but then it's no longer in the realm of facts but now of opinion. But again. Statistics are elitist.
Thanks, that's basically all I was trying to point out.
On July 22 2012 01:06 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:[quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:[quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else. Are you misreading this intentionally? For further reference: In a country with the population size of the UK 750 people die every year by current UK death rates.
In a country with the population size of the UK 3000 people die every year by current US death rates.
In a country with the population size of the US 3750 people die every year by current UK death rates.
In a country with the population size of the US 15100 people die every year by current US death rates.
Actually no, I'm not, because that was posted while I was still typing. =)
|
On July 22 2012 01:13 MVega wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 01:06 The KY wrote:
How is this relevant? Most people don't get murdered. We all know this.
Petition to rename this thread Slowly And Painfully Working Out The Totally Obvious? It's not obvious though if most people don't seem to understand that things can be made to sound significantly worse or significantly better than they are in reality. Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 01:07 Eps wrote:On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:
[quote]
Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot.
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:
[quote]
Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot.
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else. You're technically right on that. The chances of a certain individual being murdered within the country is relatively slim. But when you're looking at the general population, it's a sigificant difference. You can paint it as "It's not that bad", but then it's no longer in the realm of facts but now of opinion. But again. Statistics are elitist. Thanks, that's basically all I was trying to point out. Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 01:06 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 21 2012 23:50 emythrel wrote:One very easy way to see that being in a country that doesn't allow the right to carry arms means you get less gun deaths..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateUSA - 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000 population UK - 0.46 gun deaths per 100,000 population btw... check out Chile at 0.06 gun deaths per 100,000 population. That is impressive. In my nearly 29 years on this planet I there has been 1 shooting in my home town and it was an accident involving a gun demonstration. I have been a heavy drug user and know many people involved with gangs, organised crime etc and have only ever met a few people who own a gun. We make is nearly impossible to own a gun unless you have some good reason to have it, farmers etc. Most people with a gun licence aren't allowed to carry it with them unless goin to a gun range and then its not allowed to be loaded. Makes sense to me that when you don't allow people to have guns, less people get shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:
[quote]
Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot.
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:
[quote]
Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot.
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else. Are you misreading this intentionally? For further reference: In a country with the population size of the UK 750 people die every year by current UK death rates.
In a country with the population size of the UK 3000 people die every year by current US death rates.
In a country with the population size of the US 3750 people die every year by current UK death rates.
In a country with the population size of the US 15100 people die every year by current US death rates.
Actually no, I'm not, because that was posted while I was still typing. =)
I did explain it in 2 separate post before the bold one though...
|
On July 22 2012 01:14 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 01:13 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 01:06 The KY wrote:
How is this relevant? Most people don't get murdered. We all know this.
Petition to rename this thread Slowly And Painfully Working Out The Totally Obvious? It's not obvious though if most people don't seem to understand that things can be made to sound significantly worse or significantly better than they are in reality. On July 22 2012 01:07 Eps wrote:On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:[quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:
[quote]
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US.
And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:
[quote]
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US.
And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else. You're technically right on that. The chances of a certain individual being murdered within the country is relatively slim. But when you're looking at the general population, it's a sigificant difference. You can paint it as "It's not that bad", but then it's no longer in the realm of facts but now of opinion. But again. Statistics are elitist. Thanks, that's basically all I was trying to point out. On July 22 2012 01:06 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:On July 21 2012 23:55 NeMeSiS3 wrote:[quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateShows that there is only a 3 person increase in total homicides comparably between London and the states... The States has 360million people, meaning that a lot of places are packed tight with people, increasing the odds of homicides. So 3 person differential isn't a very large difference. Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot. It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:
[quote]
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US.
And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:
[quote]
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US.
And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else. Are you misreading this intentionally? For further reference: In a country with the population size of the UK 750 people die every year by current UK death rates.
In a country with the population size of the UK 3000 people die every year by current US death rates.
In a country with the population size of the US 3750 people die every year by current UK death rates.
In a country with the population size of the US 15100 people die every year by current US death rates.
Actually no, I'm not, because that was posted while I was still typing. =) I did explain it in 2 separate post before the bold one though...
You seem to be under the impression that I don't understand the numbers.  I do. Possibly in the massive conversation things got a little muddled, but my original point was that both sides of the debate frame the hard data in ways that makes it sound significantly better or worse to prove their points. I started to make that point because someone framed it in such a way that it sounded like it was no big deal and someone else replied framing it the worst possible sounding way while criticizing the other person for framing it differently. So I apologise if you got the wrong idea. No worries. =)
On July 22 2012 01:13 Heweree wrote:
No, no, no and no.
With gun control not every random criminal can get a gun. Along the "Guns don't kill people, only people kill people" that's the most stupid argument. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money.
I saw this argument of : "You're just going to take guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens while criminals will still find them illegally" coming from at least 10 persons in this thread.
Empirical evidence in Europe and other countries shows it's false.
This is another thing, I understand your point of view. Having lived very briefly in Europe and in Australia as well. I agree that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." is a stupid argument. However that isn't empirical evidence and it doesn't apply in this situation because the number of guns involved is vastly different. Just for the sake of argument lets say that tomorrow morning the US government decides to ban civilians from having guns and all the law abiding citizens turn in their guns and all the guns for sale legally are instantly removed from shelves. Then there are MILLIONS of illegal guns still out there that are available for sale and millions more that are already distributed into the hands of criminals. Eventually we would reach a point like Europe, but it would take at least one lifetime to get there. There are that many guns out there. Plus we don't just have the guns in the US to worry about, there are all the guns that cross over our border to the south, and that's a huge border. I'd like to see it happen, I really would, but even with the best possible implementation of that kind of gun control I would never be able to see it in my lifetime.
|
On July 22 2012 01:29 MVega wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 01:14 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 01:13 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 01:06 The KY wrote:
How is this relevant? Most people don't get murdered. We all know this.
Petition to rename this thread Slowly And Painfully Working Out The Totally Obvious? It's not obvious though if most people don't seem to understand that things can be made to sound significantly worse or significantly better than they are in reality. On July 22 2012 01:07 Eps wrote:On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:
[quote]
Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot.
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:
[quote]
And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:
[quote]
And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else. You're technically right on that. The chances of a certain individual being murdered within the country is relatively slim. But when you're looking at the general population, it's a sigificant difference. You can paint it as "It's not that bad", but then it's no longer in the realm of facts but now of opinion. But again. Statistics are elitist. Thanks, that's basically all I was trying to point out. On July 22 2012 01:06 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:06 emythrel wrote:
[quote]
Well actually when you frame it in a certain way it doesn't sound that bad. But when you frame it as an increase per 100,000 people of 300% then its pretty damning (1.2 per 100,000 in the UK, 4.80 per 100,000 in the USA). basically you are 4 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than the UK and 20 times more likely to be shot.
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US. In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:
[quote]
And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:38 karpo wrote:
[quote]
And if you compare it to the UK total population (63 mil) you get 756 deaths (UK rate) and 3024 (US rate). That's quite the difference imo. I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else. Are you misreading this intentionally? For further reference: In a country with the population size of the UK 750 people die every year by current UK death rates.
In a country with the population size of the UK 3000 people die every year by current US death rates.
In a country with the population size of the US 3750 people die every year by current UK death rates.
In a country with the population size of the US 15100 people die every year by current US death rates.
Actually no, I'm not, because that was posted while I was still typing. =) I did explain it in 2 separate post before the bold one though... You seem to be under the impression that I don't understand the numbers. I do. Possibly in the massive conversation things got a little muddled, but my original point was that both sides of the debate frame the hard data in ways that makes it sound significantly better or worse to prove their points. I started to make that point because someone framed it in such a way that it sounded like it was no big deal and someone else replied framing it the worst possible sounding way while criticizing the other person for framing it differently. So I apologise if you got the wrong idea. No worries. =) Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 01:13 Heweree wrote:
No, no, no and no.
With gun control not every random criminal can get a gun. Along the "Guns don't kill people, only people kill people" that's the most stupid argument. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money.
I saw this argument of : "You're just going to take guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens while criminals will still find them illegally" coming from at least 10 persons in this thread.
Empirical evidence in Europe and other countries shows it's false.
This is another thing, I understand your point of view. Having lived very briefly in Europe and in Australia as well. I agree that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." is a stupid argument. However that isn't empirical evidence and it doesn't apply in this situation because the number of guns involved is vastly different. Just for the sake of argument lets say that tomorrow morning the US government decides to ban civilians from having guns and all the law abiding citizens turn in their guns and all the guns for sale legally are instantly removed from shelves. Then there are MILLIONS of illegal guns still out there that are available for sale and millions more that are already distributed into the hands of criminals. Eventually we would reach a point like Europe, but it would take at least one lifetime to get there. There are that many guns out there. Plus we don't just have the guns in the US to worry about, there are all the guns that cross over our border to the south, and that's a huge border. I'd like to see it happen, I really would, but even with the best possible implementation of that kind of gun control I would never be able to see it in my lifetime.
I agree fully, but you have to start one day. It will take a looong time, and it needs the approval of the majority of the population. Banning straight away all private gun ownership would be stupid and dangerous, but tending for stricter gun control would be a step in the right way.
|
On July 22 2012 01:38 Heweree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 01:29 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 01:14 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 01:13 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 01:06 The KY wrote:
How is this relevant? Most people don't get murdered. We all know this.
Petition to rename this thread Slowly And Painfully Working Out The Totally Obvious? It's not obvious though if most people don't seem to understand that things can be made to sound significantly worse or significantly better than they are in reality. On July 22 2012 01:07 Eps wrote:On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:
[quote]
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US.
In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else. You're technically right on that. The chances of a certain individual being murdered within the country is relatively slim. But when you're looking at the general population, it's a sigificant difference. You can paint it as "It's not that bad", but then it's no longer in the realm of facts but now of opinion. But again. Statistics are elitist. Thanks, that's basically all I was trying to point out. On July 22 2012 01:06 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 01:01 MVega wrote:On July 22 2012 00:51 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:48 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 Derez wrote:On July 22 2012 00:28 MVega wrote:
[quote]
It's all in how you frame it though isn't it? Percentages can be grossly misleading. 300% more when talking about a miniscule number is still a pretty small number. The difference between 1 person and 4 people ... Well, when you go into percentages it sounds huge, but in reality and dealing with hard numbers it's pretty insignificant. And again I'm saying all this as someone who wants stricter gun control in the US.
In the US context, the difference between 1 and pretty much 5 amounts to 13000ish homicides in the US, which in turn is more than 800 times the amount of people shot in the movie theatre. I personally don't think that's a 'small' number. On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 You don't understand what the above poster was saying. He was comparing the current UK homicide rate to the hypothetical situation where the UK had a homicide rate comparable to the US, which would mean a nearly 5 fold increase. Ahh I added in my edit (before I saw this) that I may be misunderstanding. So per 100,000 there is a 5fold increase? Because this statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratestates that it is only approx 3 On July 22 2012 00:47 karpo wrote:On July 22 2012 00:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
I don't think you know how per capita works. Population can be used as a reason why (for instance a lot of people packed together with high poverty) but using the literal death counts, there isn't a big difference. 360 mil people vs 63 mil people 756 vs 3024 ? I mean 360 is approx 6 times larger (give or take) but your number is approximately 5 times larger. 1500+1500+750 = 3750 I was pretty clear that i compared US and UK death rates for the UK population size as you can't compare them directly due to the huge size difference. It's just a way of showing the difference on a real country population instead of per 100k persons saying, "3 people doesn't make much difference". Statistically it doesn't... Saying 3k people die in a population of 360million vs 750 in a 63million population? I mean those are pretty good numbers for the country that is much larger. Obviously if you are employing empathy, than that loss of life is sad, but from a pure numbers perspective nothing is wrong with that comparably. You can argue that killing is wrong, or both countries need to improve, but you can't objectively say "this is so much better than that" based off those numbers. 4.8/1.2= 4. You're 4 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in the UK, and nearly 5,5 times as likely to be murdered in the US than you are where I live. See how we're all saying the same thing but you can frame it two different ways and one way makes it sound really bad and one way makes it sound not so bad? 5.5 times a miniscule number is still a really small number. 3k people out of 360 million is a really really small number. So is 750 out of 63 million. The fact that 3000 is bigger than 750 doesn't make 3,000 a big number, it's just larger than 750. Your chances of getting murdered are still really really small, just not as small as somewhere else. Are you misreading this intentionally? For further reference: In a country with the population size of the UK 750 people die every year by current UK death rates.
In a country with the population size of the UK 3000 people die every year by current US death rates.
In a country with the population size of the US 3750 people die every year by current UK death rates.
In a country with the population size of the US 15100 people die every year by current US death rates.
Actually no, I'm not, because that was posted while I was still typing. =) I did explain it in 2 separate post before the bold one though... You seem to be under the impression that I don't understand the numbers. I do. Possibly in the massive conversation things got a little muddled, but my original point was that both sides of the debate frame the hard data in ways that makes it sound significantly better or worse to prove their points. I started to make that point because someone framed it in such a way that it sounded like it was no big deal and someone else replied framing it the worst possible sounding way while criticizing the other person for framing it differently. So I apologise if you got the wrong idea. No worries. =) On July 22 2012 01:13 Heweree wrote:
No, no, no and no.
With gun control not every random criminal can get a gun. Along the "Guns don't kill people, only people kill people" that's the most stupid argument. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money.
I saw this argument of : "You're just going to take guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens while criminals will still find them illegally" coming from at least 10 persons in this thread.
Empirical evidence in Europe and other countries shows it's false.
This is another thing, I understand your point of view. Having lived very briefly in Europe and in Australia as well. I agree that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." is a stupid argument. However that isn't empirical evidence and it doesn't apply in this situation because the number of guns involved is vastly different. Just for the sake of argument lets say that tomorrow morning the US government decides to ban civilians from having guns and all the law abiding citizens turn in their guns and all the guns for sale legally are instantly removed from shelves. Then there are MILLIONS of illegal guns still out there that are available for sale and millions more that are already distributed into the hands of criminals. Eventually we would reach a point like Europe, but it would take at least one lifetime to get there. There are that many guns out there. Plus we don't just have the guns in the US to worry about, there are all the guns that cross over our border to the south, and that's a huge border. I'd like to see it happen, I really would, but even with the best possible implementation of that kind of gun control I would never be able to see it in my lifetime. I agree fully, but you have to start one day. It will take a looong time, and it needs the approval of the majority of the population. Banning straight away all private gun ownership would be stupid and dangerous, but tending for stricter gun control would be a step in the right way.
I'd definitely be all for that.
|
There's in excess of 250,000,000 firearms in the USA. That's the legal guns that aren't smuggled and what not. Illegal and stolen firearms are Insanely easy to access. All it requires is a knowing someone dealing drugs usually. They all have access to illegal weapons. Comparing Europe to the USA in removing firearms just shows how blatantly unInformed you are on this particular subject. It's not going to happen anytime in our lifetime. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Almost all guns are not registered therefore no one knows who has how many of anything.
|
On July 22 2012 01:54 heliusx wrote:
There's in excess of 250,000,000 firearms in the USA. That's the legal guns that aren't smuggled and what not. Illegal and stolen firearms are Insanely easy to access. All it requires is a knowing someone dealing drugs usually. They all have access to illegal weapons. Comparing Europe to the USA in removing firearms just shows how blatantly unInformed you are on this particular subject. It's not going to happen anytime in our lifetime. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Almost all guns are not registered therefore no one knows who has how many of anything.
I'm sure we're all aware that simply outlawing guns in the US would result in very little change except maybe in the long, long term because there are already a shit ton of the fucking things everywhere.
The question the thread poses is should people be allowed to own and carry firearms. Not should the US outlaw owning guns.
|
On July 21 2012 23:46 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 23:41 Archybaldie wrote:On July 21 2012 23:36 Ezod wrote:On July 21 2012 23:30 Rassy wrote:
So what are the reasons to keep the guns?
Self-defence, culture/tradition, and the fact that bearing arms is a "god given right" in the constitution. + Show Spoiler +"The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States reads as follows: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia' but before I address that consider this. When the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people. A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people. A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier. The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference. Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people. The defence of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it. So despite arguments to the contrary from some. The term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government. The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States. When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous. Brian Thwaites LL.B (Hons) Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_founding_fathers_include_the_Second_Amendment#ixzz21HOtuNoP" With the strength of modern military, would a milita even be viable as military technology increases? Also if the militia is "obselete" via modern day advantages. Would that make that law antiquated and obselete? Second these queries I would like to hear the answer. Honestly I don't think in the event of an oppressive government in the US, the citizenry could muster up and organize enough force to fight the military. Maybe in a few areas they could gain control. For a bit.
It would make the fight messy enough though so that no soldier would ever want to fight this war
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 21 2012 19:11 BrosephBrostar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 19:07 mkfuba07 wrote:On July 21 2012 18:40 BrosephBrostar wrote:
Imagine if everyone in the theater was armed with an assault rifle. I'd say there would be maybe 1 or 2 dead and 5 wounded max. Don't know if you're trolling, but just in case... You think that giving a hundred people assault rifles, putting them in a loud, crowded theater, and then shooting one of them won't result in many of the people firing at the next person to aim in their general direction? I don't know about your desire for self-preservation, but I'm willing to bet that a few of those people will react without thinking when their lives, or those of their loved ones, are threatened. Even if they do fire at the correct person, if they miss then there are two shooters. I'm sure you can see how that would quickly grow out of control. You're making it sound like some kind of dragon's teeth scenario, but it's much more likely that the guy would get dropped the second he opened fire, if he even had the guts to start shooting to begin with. Shooting a bunch of people prepared to shoot back requires a different kind of crazy than executing defenseless targets.
Oh, of course, the standard mutually assured destruction argument. Clearly it's completely okay if Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons, because they won't have the guts to open fire with them!
Oh, and go read up on the assassination attempt on Reagan, and what happened to Brady. Despite being surrounded by TRAINED (average citizens are not trained) and armed secret servicemen, the man still did a lot of damage.
|
I fully support the American 2nd admendment and think Gun control is stupid.
How can a people stand up agaisnt an oppressive goverment witohut weapons?
You need weapons to win.
Also check ur facts.
Do you know why Japan never atempted a major land invasion of the USA in WWII.
Japan was scared of the gun owning Americas. 300million people with guns is a pretty scary idea.
I own several guns and anyone stupid enough to break into my home is dead.
If the Goverment ever tries to oppress me or my family, I can fihgt back.
If my country ever gets invaded, I can help fihgt back.
You need weapons to fight. Period.
Somethings are worth fighting for. Somethings are worth dieing for.
|
i like it when people talk about the US military (which is a volunteer military) fighting civilians (our officers are college educated) and winning.
do you have any idea how much it costs to run a military? where are they gonna get this money? and since the AWOL rates would skyrocket, the mass resignations of officers, the vast amount of infighting that would occur, fractures between the branches... yeah... let's be serious here. not only could it never happen, but they would get their shit kicked in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
